Typical enlargement sizes for early 35mm negatives

[Pioneer]

What were the typical enlargement sizes for early 35mm negatives such as those exposed using the Leica cameras in the 20s and 30s?

What would the typical photographer expect from his miniature negative?

 

[Paul Howell]

Although I was not alive, from I recall reading and being told by those who were, due to film limitations most thought a 5X7 was as about as large one should go. On the other hand in the 30s and 40s Eugene Smith often enlarged to 8X10. I've seen a few of his original prints, somewhat grainy but he was shooting for the emotional impact of a given story. I think Asnal Adams made 5X7 and smaller from his 35mm negatives. There are those who still think a 35mm negative should not enlarged more than 5X7.

 

[cliveh]

I would imagine whole plate 8.5" X 6.5" or half plate 6.5" X 4.75" if memory serves me correctly.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the 20s 8X10 was considered to be the normal formate, by the 30s 4X5, 40 to the 50s 4X5 and 120 roll film became the "norm". When I was in college in the 60s 35mm had become acceptable for news.

 

[Pieter12]

I just came across an old family photo taken around 1950 and probably printed through the local drugstore. The image measures approximately 2-1/4"x4-1/4" on 2-3/4"x4-1/2" paper (hard to measure that because it has those scalloped edges that were common back then).

 

[Steven Lee]

Now I am curious too. Does anyone know of any exhibitions in NorCal where one can see vintage (1900-1950) wet/contact prints on display?

 

[Pioneer]

In the book "My Leica and I" there is mention of making 28x40 inch prints. When I read that I realized that I have never actually looked at museum quality prints from that period so I had no reference as to what was considered normal. I have seen reproductions on-line but that doesn't give any scale to refer to.

I am certainly not in the same league of some famous photographers who were using Leicas back then but I can't think of a single negative that I have exposed that would stand up to that level of enlargement. Heck, I am pushing it sometimes to get 8x10.

 

[mwdake]

I just came across an old family photo taken around 1950 and probably printed through the local drugstore. The image measures approximately 2-1/4"x4-1/4" on 2-3/4"x4-1/2" paper (hard to measure that because it has those scalloped edges that were common back then).

They sound like they may be contact prints from 116/616 film. It was quite common in that era to make contacts from medium format film instead of enlarging.

 

[Pieter12]

They sound like they may be contact prints from 116/616 film. It was quite common in that era to make contacts from medium format film instead of enlarging.

I'm just guessing. My uncle had a Leica he picked up in post-war West Germany that he shot a lot with. But could be a different camera. I was the baby in the photo.

 

[Paul Howell]

With modern films, Tmax 100, 200 LPM, camera that is well tuned with proper focus and film flatness, quality m/c lens, lens shade, heavy tripod, cable or remote release, proper development, I don't see why a 16X20 is not realistic. With a Leica, Contax, with single or uncoated lens, a slow film like Panatomic X, tripod, cable release, proper development with Edwal 20, I think a 11X14 to 16X20 might be possible. But once you added a tripod there is no reason not to use a MF or LF. The reason Eugene Smith and other who shot with Leica was to have the freedom for stories with a spontaneous element. Not that others could not shoot on the run with a press camera or TLR, just that 35mm set up provides greater flexibility.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Now I am curious too. Does anyone know of any exhibitions in NorCal where one can see vintage (1900-1950) wet/contact prints on display?

Lots of galleries in Carmel, CA:

Oficino Uno &
Weston Gallery, among others

 

[runswithsizzers]

I wonder how many photographers of the 1920s and 1930s already had an enlarger in their darkrooms? Was it typical to enlarge negatives from 4x5 and larger formats?

I am guessing negatives from medium format roll film cameras were much more likely to be enlarged - but how popular were those formats in the 1920s-30s?

In other words, Were darkroom enlargers already a mature technology when 35mm cameras started to become popular? And was it necessary for enlarger technology to go through a significant transformation before prints from 35mm film could become popular?

 

[MattKing]

I wonder how many photographers of the 1920s and 1930s already had an enlarger in their darkrooms? Was it typical to enlarge negatives from 4x5 and larger formats?

I am guessing negatives from medium format roll film cameras were much more likely to be enlarged - but how popular were those formats in the 1920s-30s?

In other words, Were darkroom enlargers already a mature technology when 35mm cameras started to become popular? And was it necessary for enlarger technology to go through a significant transformation before prints from 35mm film could become popular?

My 1940 Kodak Reference Handbook includes a fair bit of material about setting up darkrooms that contain enlargers.
This photonet thread includes some interesting insights: https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/186849-when-did-enlarging-become-usual/

 

[wiltw]

I recall about 1961-1962 my father's first rangefinder camera in 135 format, a Fujica, and we would bring the film to a local photography store for processing, and we would get '2R' prints, about 2" x 3" from the processed film. About 1965 he upgraded to our first SLR, a Topcon Auto 100...I still have that camera and lenses.

 

[bernard_L]

In the 20s 8X10 was considered to be the normal formate, by the 30s 4X5, 40 to the 50s 4X5 and 120 roll film became the "norm". When I was in college in the 60s 35mm had become acceptable for news.

Persistent use of 4x5 for news coverage into the 50's is USA-specific.

Erich Salomon used an Ermanox with 645 glass plates and a 85/1.8 lens to take available-light photos, notably in international conferences and tribunals. Below: Salomon and his Ermanox; Briand-Kellogg conference 1928; Hague conference 1929-30. Available light. Delta 3200 was not yet available.

When covering the Spanish civil war, Robert Capa and Gerda Taro used a Leica and a Rollei (sometimes exchanged cameras).

 

[Don_ih]

From Leica Society International:

"There are 4 models of the E. Leitz Wetzlar “Box Type Enlarging Apparatus,” one of which is pictured in the July 1928 edition of “Directions for using the Leitz ‘Leica’ Camera.” All but one of these used the same tall, vertical, crinkle-finished, two-section metal housing with a lamp socket and non-detachable power cord emerging from the top. These were diffusion enlargers with opal bulbs, and they all were capable of exposing sheets of photographic print paper in small print sizes. The Flein, built into a vertical box of unspecified construction (probably wood) incorporated a fixed focus 65mm lens and made 3-1/2 x 2-1/2-inch enlargements. The Fleos provided the same print size as the Flein but evidently used a metal housing “with 75-watt opal bulb in detachable metal casing” i.e., the top section. The Filar “Plain daylight enlarger” resembled the Fleos , and had a 65mm lens like the Flein, but it made larger postcard-sized 5-1/2 x 3-1/2-inch prints. The similarly configured Filix also made postcard-sized prints but used a 100-watt bulb. All these units performed admirably according to contemporary users, were beautifully made, and quite durable, but they lacked the flexibility of an adjustable enlarger."

So, it seems Leitz thought the small negatives were good for postcard-size prints. They apparently didn't make anything that enlarged any bigger than that for some time.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

What were the typical enlargement sizes for early 35mm negatives such as those exposed using the Leica cameras in the 20s and 30s?

What would the typical photographer expect from his miniature negative?

It's not an easy question to answer,as I'm not sure what films were available in the miniature format as they called it back then.
Perhaps Photrio members like Bob Carnie, John Salim and Mike Crawford who have their own photo processing businesses may have some experience of enlarging such old negatives.

As someone already mentioned, probably around postcard size.

 

[Ian Grant]

Back in the late 1980s I went to see the large Ansel Adams exhibition at the Barbican in London, in the bar gallery there was an exhibition of early Kertesz images, none larger than about whole plate 6½"x8½" and many were quite small. Most would have been made with cameras like an ICA Bebe or Goerz Tenax, both 4.5x6cm plate cameras, or a Voigtlander Alpin 9x12 camera. So although larger formats than 35mm there was only modest enlargement, these were contemporary prints made close to the time the images were shot. The image quality was jewel like and superb. Post WWII prints made from the same negative enlarged mor look stark and lifeless in comparison.

Enlargers ere quite common by the early 1900s, most were horizontal, but there were a few vertical models. Lancaster made one model that was autofocus, as you raised the head the bellows extension reduced, keeping the lens in focus.

By 1926 there were enlargers being used for 35mm negatives, a 1927 BJP magazine article discussed wet mounting 35mm negatives to negate the surface artifacts of the emulsion, an abridged version was published in the 1928 BJP Almanac (pages 269-271). The illustrations shows strips of 35mm negatives, I did post a scan on this forum some years ago.

The fixed enlarges as illustrated above go back many years, some used daylight, I was surprised how sophisticated enlargers had become by the mid 1920s, quite a number are self/automatic focusing. By then most were vertical, and typically smaller models designed for 1½ to 4x enlargements, so quite modest column heights.

It's worth noting that competitors to Leitz made 35mm enlargers available around the same time as their first 35mmcameras, Zeiss (Contax), Wirgin (Exacta), KW (Praktiflex). Hansa Kwanon (Canon), as well as Meyer who sold Leica cameras with some of their lenses like their f1.5 Plasmat.

Ian

 

[logan2z]

Just the other day I was looking at the website of the Catherine Couturier gallery in Houston and noticed they were selling gelatin silver prints of Elliot Erwitt photos shot on 35mm film in sizes of 20x24 and 30x40 inches. For example,

New York City (Dog Legs)

Dog Legs is an iconic photo by Elliott Erwitt set in New York City showing legs of humans and dogs together.

www.catherinecouturier.com

I've seen many 16x20 inch darkroom prints (by William Klein and others) that held up pretty well, but I don't think I've ever seen anything as large as these Elliott Erwitt prints. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to handle a wet print of this size in the darkroom. 11x14 is about as large as I can deal with.

 

[guangong]

My friend the late Louie Stettner made large exhibition sized prints from 35mm. In 1956 he wrote a book “U.S. Camera’s 35mm Phtography”… a U.S Camera Book. He was a master of 35mm and amazed all of us by his achievements.

 

[Ian Grant]

You can't compare post WWII 35mm images to smaller format (inc 35mm) pre-WWII images. Photography had changed in so many ways, and you can add some dates to this timeline.

New optical glasses from Zeiss Abbe around 1924 allowing new fast lenses to be produce, like the f1.8 Ermanox, the Meyer f1.5 Plasmat, etc, but plate/film emulsions were not particularly fine grained, or sharp, so enlargement had to be small.

The major improvements in film came in 1934 with the first generation of modern films (plates) Ilford Selochrome Fine Grain Panchromatic, and Hypersensitive Panchromatic, Agfa would have had something similar. Ilord upgraded to FP2 and HP2 in 1937. Kodak lagged behind only introducing their equivalents in 1939 Plus-X Super-XX, & Tri-X, the latter only available as sheet film.

Ilford FP3 & HP3 followed quite quickly, FP3 &HP3 plates in 1942, HP3 film 1943, FP3 film in 1946. The other huge improvement was lens coating introduced by Zeiss in 1938, although only a few pre-WWII Zeiss lenses were coated. Here in the UK Taylor, Taylor, & Hobson had perfected lens coatings slightly earlier but it was deemed to be a military secret by the Government. Post WWII almost all lenses were coated.

There are tw other factors, first the introduction of small accurate light meters, which allowed for the second a change in development technique,.To minimise grain with 35mm you need to exose accurately and develop optimally to match the printing paper. The older techicque of over exposure and longer development often in Pyro developer, or quite vigourous MQ devlopers increases grain size.

Hans Windisch wrote about the new approach in his seminal book Die Neu Foto Schule/The New Photo School, updated afer WWII as The Manual of Modern Photography, The Technique. It is the way we essentially all work today.

Ian

 

[Pioneer]

Well, I live quite aways from any museums that may be displaying prints from old 35mm negs. Going back through some of my own negatives and prints from my Elmar lenses it would appear that most of my own enlargements have been on 5x7 paper. I was able to locate a couple of 8x10s but my records show those are from my LTM Summicron. Of course this is all done with modern material.

I guess I'll just have to do some experiments of my own with my 1933 Elmar. I have some 11x14 paper for my large format contact prints. I guess that is a good starting point.

Darn!

 

[Dusty Negative]

My friend the late Louie Stettner made large exhibition sized prints from 35mm. In 1956 he wrote a book “U.S. Camera’s 35mm Phtography”… a U.S Camera Book. He was a master of 35mm and amazed all of us by his achievements.

How large were the “large exhibition size prints?”

 

[BMbikerider]

I just came across an old family photo taken around 1950 and probably printed through the local drugstore. The image measures approximately 2-1/4"x4-1/4" on 2-3/4"x4-1/2" paper (hard to measure that because it has those scalloped edges that were common back then).

The edges were made with a special guillotine trimmer to make the 'deckle edges'. These were still being used to make contact sized prints 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" around the 1950's.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well, I live quite aways from any museums that may be displaying prints from old 35mmGoing back through some of my own negatives and prints from my Elmar lenses it would appear that most of my own enlargements have been on 5x7 paper. I was able to locate a couple of 8x10s but my records show those are from my LTM Summicron. Of course this is all done with modern material.

I guess I'll just have to do some experiments of my own with my 1933 Elmar.

Darn!

Did you buy the Elmar new I have a Summar and an Elmar, the Summar will be lower contrast, have a look online at the work of James Ravilious, a British photographer who shot with one, a different look to modern lenses.

Some years ago I'd done some work for a photographer, who wanted a lens with a vintage look, so I said well which of the photos on the wall were shot with a vintage lens, the choice was a shot with a Yashicamat 124, rather than a pre-WWII Goerz Am Opt Dagor. Why, because I'd used differential focus with the Yashica so shallow depth of field.

Don't expect a huge difference with the Elmar, shadow and highlight detail will differ slightly compared to a Summicron or other modern lens.

IAn